Taro T Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 He did have two basic decisions other than not doing anything. To go in like they did or a smart bomb. The drawback to the smart bomb approach is that we would never know if we really got him. He really didn't have the choice to do nothing. If word ever got out he would be demonized. His premature release of information about us getting Osama and the talk about the intelligence we gathered, had no other value than politics. So in other words, he did harm to our future security for his own political reasons. And, just as he deserves a measure of credit for the mission occurring on his watch, he deserves a healthy dose of criticism for the problems this will create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 LOL at this topic. You bunch of idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Some people have no clue whatsoever, while others (Obama for example) have somewhat of a clue, but can't think beyond themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 B-Man, DC, and 3rd, this is why I'm making that points that I'm making - youtube.com/watch?v=mYefHfokP44 Here is the rub...Obama took so much heat for saying in 2008 that he would strike Al Queda in Pakistan. Clinton, Biden, and McCain pilloried his statements. In fact he was just about the lone voice saying "this is what would be done in this instance..." The rest of them equivocated...and postured...and spoke in platitudes.... And Obama did what he said he'd do. The decision was even more laudable when you consider the political calculation and what the various criticisms during the campaign. Remember this gem from McCain: "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?" asked the Arizona senator. Even after the Wisconsin speech, McCain reiterated his criticism. The next day, he said, “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.” “You don’t broadcast and say that you’re going to bomb a country without their permission.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/obama-pakistan-policy_n_856321.html According to all indications post-mission, though, coordinating with Pakistan would have been a nightmare: http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/ So based on his own articulated sentiments, I feel that McCain would have botched it. Clinton too. Biden too. They were all equivocating 'do nothings' who were too afraid to take a position and stand on it. Bush wasn't; Obama wasn't. I respect them both for that constitution. Just to be clear: you think Obama deserves credit for...not being McCain. Fine. I'll credit him with that. And for the record: while I disagreed with McCain's statement, he also seemed to have a better grasp of the political ramifications than Obama demonstrated when he authorized the hit. While the backlash from Pakistan should not have prevented the strike...being as unprepared for it as this administration was, was reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Just to be clear: you think Obama deserves credit for...not being McCain. Fine. I'll credit him with that. And for the record: while I disagreed with McCain's statement, he also seemed to have a better grasp of the political ramifications than Obama demonstrated when he authorized the hit. While the backlash from Pakistan should not have prevented the strike...being as unprepared for it as this administration was, was reckless. how do you know they were unprepared? do you like pulling things out of your ass? youre an idiot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 She just forgot to log in under her current alais MARCELL DAREUS POWER I'm gonna have to disagree. Nozzlenut was never one for theoretical economic mental masturbation. She always struck me as somebody that was a tad bitter because she just missed the 60s but still wanted to let her childhood coloured servants know they were still people Nah I think she's BiggieScooby. Don't think she's Scooby either. I don't recall Scoobie mentioning anything about her kids or friends kids who might possibly have gone to Iraq to sacrifice their blood for Cheney's oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Yeah were all so much better under Bush. Stupid Obama screwed all that up. We pretty much were. I know I was. As were most of the people I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 At lease we can all agree to give Richard Nixon the credit he deserves for getting our astronauts on the moon in 1969 and for creating the space shuttle program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 At lease we can all agree to give Richard Nixon the credit he deserves for getting our astronauts on the moon in 1969 and for creating the space shuttle program. Telling NASA they could launch was a gutsy call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Telling NASA they could launch was a gutsy call Jimmy Carter would have messed it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Should have qualified that any decent prez would have done it. Unfortunately we haven't had one of those in over 20 years. Your right. My bad. It was not a difficult decision and bringing up the failure s of other presidents is no argument. I don't know the circumstances of the Bush situation and either does your insignificant ass. So don't pretend like you do. It was a easy decision and even a schmuck like yourself would be capable of making the correct one. Barry isn't capable of making any tough decisions. He hasn't had to make any all his life. A student. Then a "community organizer" aka instigator. Then a senator. Never had to turn a buck himself. Never ran a business where making difficult decisions is as daily occurrence. Hasn't done shite so to give this idiot credit for anything that requires balls or knowledge is laughable. It wasn't an easy decision and that you think it was implicates your naivete and stupidity. You're a dolt whose bona fides with respect to this subject matter is relegated to Glenn Beck talking points. Both your classlessness and your cluelessness is shining nearly as bright as the 7:00 sun on this beautiful Washington D.C. morning. But don't take it from me, let's hear from Robert Gates. Who do you feel is more credible? The 30 year CIA, NSA, NSC, Airforce Lieutenant, first ballot Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of Defense, and Reagan, H.W. Bush, and W. Bush appointee (parse this context): http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/15/news/la-pn-robert-gates-60-minutes-20110515 “I worked for a lot of these guys. And this is one of the most courageous calls, decisions that I think I’ve ever seen a president make. For all of the concerns that I’ve just been talking about. The uncertainty of the intelligence. The consequences of it going bad. The risk to the lives of the Americans involved. It was a very gutsy call” Or Dante: It was a easy decision and even a schmuck like yourself would be capable of making the correct one. Barry isn't capable of making any tough decisions. Sorry Dante, you lose. Your tampon is saturated and your menustrating gap is betraying the identity conflict that the "procedure" didn't quite correct. Now you're just a B word with a peach fuzz mustache and a deep voice. Let me guess, Dante will say: 1. "What is he (Gates) supposed to say?" To which I'll reply - he didn't have to say scchit. He certainly didn't have to be that effusive. And I believe that HE WAS RETIRED when he made those statements so it wasn't for sake of professional advancement. 2. "but but but...Donald Rumsfeld..." Lol. Waiting for this... 3. "I don't care, I'm entitled to my opinion." Righteeeeooo. You'll pardon me if I defer to Mr. Gates though, won't you? 4. "I would have made that call." No you wouldn't have. Whatever small, fifth world, southeast Asian under-developing nation of less than 5,000 citizen dolts that would elect your dumb ass would have been long overran by the apes, country annexed, and your light-in-the-loaffers ass would be running scared. Edited June 4, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 Telling NASA they could launch was a gutsy call See above. Non-parallel analogy and asyndetic. But otherwise, cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 Just to be clear: you think Obama deserves credit for...not being McCain. Fine. I'll credit him with that. And for the record: while I disagreed with McCain's statement, he also seemed to have a better grasp of the political ramifications than Obama demonstrated when he authorized the hit. While the backlash from Pakistan should not have prevented the strike...being as unprepared for it as this administration was, was reckless. I agree, the administration handled the after-process horribly. And the politicizing of it is pathetic. The only thing that I take issue with is the claims that it was an easy call. It simply wasn't an easy call. I commend him for correctly making a very very tough call. Gates and others have said that the quality of the intelligence was spotty. If it would have been a miss, you have blatant incursion into a sovereign nation without consent of said nation. We'd be tacitly acknowledging that we didn' trust a "partner in th war on terror" without any substantiation. We'd also be conducting a full scale military operation that likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars on what would have amounted to a personal residence. We'd be putting lives at risk. One big factor is that it would have undoubtedly announced our presence and surveillance capacity in that region towards that objective. If that would have went wrong and obl did something else...the WH would have been politically destroyed. And those are just the prima facie considerations that are apparent to a layperson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I agree, the administration handled the after-process horribly. And the politicizing of it is pathetic. The only thing that I take issue with is the claims that it was an easy call. It simply wasn't an easy call. I commend him for correctly making a very very tough call. Gates and others have said that the quality of the intelligence was spotty. If it would have been a miss, you have blatant incursion into a sovereign nation without consent of said nation. We'd be tacitly acknowledging that we didn' trust a "partner in th war on terror" without any substantiation. We'd also be conducting a full scale military operation that likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars on what would have amounted to a personal residence. We'd be putting lives at risk. One big factor is that it would have undoubtedly announced our presence and surveillance capacity in that region towards that objective. If that would have went wrong and obl did something else...the WH would have been politically destroyed. And those are just the prima facie considerations that are apparent to a layperson. What other choices did he really have? My understanding is that they were 70% sure he was there. If it ever got out that he chose not to go after Osama things would have been worse for Obama than a failed mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 You quoted John Kerry's committee (in 2009) and an article from the NYT. Fine, don't cherry pick though. From the NYT article: "Spokesmen for the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the White House declined to comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation." That 2005 operation involved hundreds of our people on the ground and it would have been evident that we were there. What if for his own political reasons Musharif sent Pakistani troops after them? They had and still have small groups on the ground there doing surveillance. It was completely different circumstances than when they got Osama, and neither you nor I have the information to make a definitive judgement. As far as McCain not making the same decision as Obama then I'll remind you of what type of character he has. When he was a POW he was offerred the opportunity to be sent home. You see, his father was very high up in the military and the North Vietnamese had some convoluted reasoning that it would be good propaganda for them. McCain refused and said he wasn't leaving until they all left. So, I think McCain was up to the task of making the tough decisions. That was just the most exhaustive Tora Bora account that is available. It is fairly well documented that obl was there in 01. The U.S. didn't commit the resources at the time to fully destroy that disgusting scourge: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296136,00.html With respect to the 2005 occassion that Bush may not have been aware of - if he wasn't that would speak to a dysfunctional command structure. He ABSOLUTELY should have known. He should have been there. He should have qb'd every moment and nuance of that operation down to the most infinitesimally small minutia of a detail. Anything less would have been absolutely unacceptable. I'd like to think that he was involved. I voted for him the second time precisely because I believed that he was absolutely committed to a strong national defense and prosecuting the war on terror. With respect to McCain, yes - true hero and soldier; he is a truly remarkable man. But his words on the matter are disquieting. 40 years of political posturing can change a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 What other choices did he really have? My understanding is that they were 70% sure he was there. If it ever got out that he chose not to go after Osama things would have been worse for Obama than a failed mission. The honest answer is that I don't know. I just know that some very smart people in positions to truly appreciate the circumstances and who are of opposite ideological persuasions say that choice was difficult. When Gates says that it was one of the most singularly difficult calls he has ever seen a POTUS make, I respect that statement - especially when that individual has worked for presidents dating back 30 years and 3 republican administrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 That was just the most exhaustive Tora Bora account that is available. It is fairly well documented that obl was there in 01. The U.S. didn't commit the resources at the time to fully destroy that disgusting scourge: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296136,00.html With respect to the 2005 occassion that Bush may not have been aware of - if he wasn't that would speak to a dysfunctional command structure. He ABSOLUTELY should have known. He should have been there. He should have qb'd every moment and nuance of that operation down to the most infinitesimally small minutia of a detail. Anything less would have been absolutely unacceptable. I'd like to think that he was involved. I voted for him the second time precisely because I believed that he was absolutely committed to a strong national defense and prosecuting the war on terror. With respect to McCain, yes - true hero and soldier; he is a truly remarkable man. But his words on the matter are disquieting. 40 years of political posturing can change a man. The 1st bolded sentence I will agree with. The last 2, I disagree with. I absolutely don't want a politician qb'ing every last detail. Keep him abreast of the situation and let him make the decision to pursue or not to pursue, but he has no background to be micromanaging the situation. And the current President hasn't even served in the military, so he has even less background. He rightfully left the details up to those qualified to address them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 The 1st bolded sentence I will agree with. The last 2, I disagree with. I absolutely don't want a politician qb'ing every last detail. Keep him abreast of the situation and let him make the decision to pursue or not to pursue, but he has no background to be micromanaging the situation. And the current President hasn't even served in the military, so he has even less background. He rightfully left the details up to those qualified to address them. O.k...point taken and actually, you're right. The more I think about it, "qbing every minutia" is a bit much to expect from civilian, non-intelligence personnel (which is essentially what POTUS is). Good catch and I retract that part of my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Non-intelligence position? The POTUS? WTF is going on in here. He's a !@#$ing intelligence position it all flows to him and w/ good reason b/c he's the commander in chief. And military experience? That's the point...we aren't Egypt. Civilians ultimately are in control of our military. Now tactics and the means by which we accomplish our goals obviously need to draw on our military experience and such and I assure you Obama and every other President has done so...I'm not saying to micromanage the tactical plan lol...but overall don't pull back too much on this Juror you were on the right path as far as I'm concerned. He should have known, and he should be involved deeply, and he should take responsibility that we didn't go get Osama then. As the Presdient get things under control. Don't just let the structure or bureaucratic system drift away and take on a life of it's own. Be an Executive. Be a Commander. Be "the decider" lol. That's my take anyway. Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 Non-intelligence position? The POTUS? WTF is going on in here. He's a !@#$ing intelligence position it all flows to him and w/ good reason b/c he's the commander in chief. And military experience? That's the point...we aren't Egypt. Civilians ultimately are in control of our military. Now tactics and the means by which we accomplish our goals obviously need to draw on our military experience and such and I assure you Obama and every other President has done so...I'm not saying to micromanage the tactical plan lol...but overall don't pull back too much on this Juror you were on the right path as far as I'm concerned. He should have known, and he should be involved deeply, and he should take responsibility that we didn't go get Osama then. As the Presdient get things under control. Don't just let the structure or bureaucratic system drift away and take on a life of it's own. Be an Executive. Be a Commander. Be "the decider" lol. That's my take anyway. Good points. Allow me to clarify a bit. My original point was that the POTUS should be intimately involved in every aspect of such an operation. TARO brings up a good point in that the POTUS should be the decisive voice, know what's going on and understand the gravity of the mission but leave the logistics to the pros. That was the nature of my retraction. There are spooks who do this schit day in and day out. I expect the president to have a logistical awareness of things but they'll never understand the logistical nuances of surveillance, combat, and tactical and operational siege campaigns from behind a desk 5000 miles away. For that reason, they probably shouldn't be qb'ing such an effort with respect to detailing and real time adjustments based on some operational viccissitude. It's the Good Will Hunting theory..."once more unto the breach, dear friends..." But overall I agree with you. Bush should have known about it and understood to a strong certainty what was going on, when , with whom, how, etc. He should also set the course of action and articulate the parameters of such an operation. Anything less than that is dereliction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts